[Oxymandias]

@Rugoz

I have read the parts about measuring "ambiguity", have you?

Of course.

In the first part of 1a they measure risk aversion, in the second part they claim to measure "ambiguity" by not revealing the winning probabilities. But if the winning probabilities are unknown, participants must make assumptions about them. If participants think the probabilities aren't fair, they are less likely to play the game. What is being measured here is simply the trust of the participants in the researchers to provide fair or favourable probabilities.

You don't seem to have read or understood experiment 1a. The participants aren't loosing any money, in fact they are guaranteed to earn money regardless of what they did. The participants were payed 10$ and, within the game, had two choices. They either could simply not play and simply take that guaranteed $5 or they could play the lottery and gain more. The only way you would loose is to not play the lottery. It's practically a free $15-20 guaranteed, even if you didn't trust the probabilities, you would still play anyways because you are still gaining something out of it. The structure of the game is designed to make sure that all players will be encouraged to gamble on that $5 dollars since, while you can walk away with $20 dollars, there is always the potential for more. Also, you missed a core part of the game's design and that is the fact that you must trust other players (those you have not seen) in order to actually gain money. Holding onto you're money and playing it safe will only net you the basic $5 per round but playing the lottery and investing your money into a pool with other players will net you more money.

They say this directly in the PDF of the full experiment that I have already linked to you:

. In experiment 1, subjects (N =103) first played a gambling task (Fig. 1a), where on each trial they decided between a sure payout of $5 or the option to play the lottery. Each lottery varied in terms of the amount of risk (25, 50, and 75% of winning the money), ambiguity (24, 50, and 74%), and potential payoffs (from $5 to $125). For example, in a risky trial, subjects could choose between a sure outcome and a gamble with a 50% chance of winning $20. These probabilities were denoted by a picture of a blue and a red bar that corresponded to an actual bag filled with 100 blue and red chips (placed beside the subject in the testing room). In an ambiguous trial, subjects were presented with a similarly colored bar; however, a proportion of the bar was occluded, leaving subjects partially informed of the composition of the chips.

The rest of the paper hinges upon the measurement of "ambiguity", so if I'm not convinced of that part I can safely ignore the rest.

Now that I have explained how the game in experiment 1a works and that I have given a direct citation from the experiment itself as evidence, I assume all conflicts you have with this study will disappear.

[Oxymandias]

@Decky

This is not correct. The right wing is all about the nuclear family and ignoring the rest of society. As Thatcher said, "there is no such thing as society just individuals and their families."

People have became more right wing than ever, that is why community is vanishing. You really think barn raisings were right wing? Communities coming together to help one another and work for the common good rather than for profit? That is called socialism. The fact is, Stalin would raise his neighbors barn and not want a penny, Trump would not.

Generalizations will get you nowhere. Just because rural life is communitarian doesn't mean it's communist. If you want proof that you don't have to be a socialist or communist to put the community's needs over an individual, look at fascism or for a less totalitarian ideology, look at communitarianism itself. Communism and socialism are economic ideologies, not social ones. They only require a different social organization as the economic system is too different from what humans are naturally used to. Communities aren't inherent to one economic system or the other, because their economic system means jackshit. Communities will spring up no matter the circumstance since building communities are inherently a part of human nature. Humans want to be a part of communities because we are social creatures and thus, like being in close proximity to other humans.

Also, I would rather trust @Victoribus Spolia own personal life experiences in a rural setting than your own generalizations.

[Rugoz]

You don't seem to have read or understood experiment 1a. The participants aren't loosing any money, in fact they are guaranteed to earn money regardless of what they did. The participants were payed 10$ and, within the game, had two choices. They either could simply not play and simply take that guaranteed $5 or they could play the lottery and gain more. The only way you would loose is to not play the lottery. It's practically a free $15-20 guaranteed, even if you didn't trust the probabilities, you would still play anyways because you are still gaining something out of it. The structure of the game is designed to make sure that all players will be encouraged to gamble on that $5 dollars since, while you can walk away with $20 dollars, there is always the potential for more.

I quote:

Experiment 1 task structure and results. Subjects first completed a computerized gambling task, which consisted of bags filled with 100 red and blue poker chips—denoted by a red and a blue bar. a The left panel represents a risky lottery with 50% chance of winning $20, while the right panel is an example of an ambiguous lottery where 50% of the chips are occluded. Subjects could always choose between playing the lottery or getting a sure payout of $5.

The risk experiment gives you a choice, either get a sure payout of $5 OR get a $20 payout with 50% probability. The ambiguity experiment gives you a a choice between a sure payout of $5 OR a $20 payout with probability between 25-75% (because 50% of the chips are occluded). There might be different setups, but that's fundamentally how the experiment is designed from the picture and the text below. It's not the payout/winning probability pairs that are uncertain, but the winning probability for a given payout.

Also, you missed a core part of the game's design and that is the fact that you must trust other players (those you have not seen) in order to actually gain money. Holding onto you're money and playing it safe will only net you the basic $5 per round but playing the lottery and investing your money into a pool with other players will net you more money.

Those are the cooperation games, in the picture above 1b is such a game. But those do not measure ambiguity, they measure cooperation (i.e. "prosocial behavior"), the variable to be explained by ambiguity.

[Oxymandias]

@Rugoz

The risk experiment gives you a choice, either get a sure payout of $5 OR get a $20 payout with 50% probability. The ambiguity experiment gives you a a choice between a sure payout of $5 OR a $20 payout with probability between 25-75% (because 50% of the chips are occluded). There might be different setups, but that's fundamentally how the experiment is designed from the picture and the text below.

You literally just rephrased what I said along with the bolded. Although, I do admit I thought you were talking about only the risk experiment so that was a failure on my part.

It's not the payout/winning probability pairs that are uncertain, but the winning probability for a given payout.

That was my point. I already stated that money isn’t the issue and that fear or risk of losing money is nonexistent. The uncertainty stems from the amount of money given, not whether or not the participant will get money. The goal of the game for the participants is not to get money, the participant will get money regardless, but to maximize the amount of money they would get. This is why, even if a participant thinks the researchers will skew the probabilities, they are still incentivized to play the game despite how fair it is.

Those are the cooperation games, in the picture above 1b is such a game. But those do not measure ambiguity, they measure cooperation (i.e. "prosocial behavior"), the variable to be explained by ambiguity.

They are cooperation games meant to measure cooperation, they just do so in the face of ambiguity or uncertainty. What you failed to notice is that the participants were not allowed to see or communicate with one another, all they were told was that there are other participants and that the other participants were human. This is displayed by the fact that they did another experiment in which the participants were allowed to gossip and talk about the other participants (this reduced cooperation).

Furthermore, the study addresses the exact point you’re trying to make. They made sure that there was no correlation between risk attitude and ambiguity tolerance:

To test the hypothesis that cooperation rates are linked to attitudes toward ambiguity and not risk, we ran a trial-by-trial hierarchical logistic regression modeling subjects’ cooperative behavior in the PGG as a function of trial number (to account for receiving feedback over time, which inherently reduces ambiguity), and their individual risk (α) and ambiguity (β) attitudes. As predicted, individuals who were ambiguity-tolerant (i.e., exhibited a greater tolerance toward uncertainty in the first gambling task; denoted by β > 1) were more likely to cooperate (Fig. 1d; Table 1). We found no such relationship with risk attitudes (Fig. 1c; Table 1; see Supplementary Fig. 2 for a representation of raw behavioral data). Testing for the significance between these two predictors revealed that the coefficient for ambiguity was significantly different from risk (z(102) = 2.14, p = 0.03; coefficients taken from the simple regressions reported in Supplementary Tables 5 and 6), suggesting that ambiguity attitudes have a unique and distinctive effect on prosocial behavior independent from risk attitudes.

You should read a little more in-depth than the amount you’ve read now and you should do so with reading comprehension.

[Oxymandias]

@Rugoz

Btw, are you a hedgehog or a fox?

[Rugoz]

That was my point. I already stated that money isn’t the issue and that fear or risk of losing money is nonexistent. The uncertainty stems from the amount of money given, not whether or not the participant will get money. The goal of the game for the participants is not to get money, the participant will get money regardless, but to maximize the amount of money they would get. This is why, even if a participant thinks the researchers will skew the probabilities, they are still incentivized to play the game despite how fair it is.

What? Of course there is a risk involved with playing the lottery. If you play you risk getting nothing with 50% probability, or with 25-75% probability in case of the ambiguity experiment. It's 5$ for sure OR playing and then your risk getting nothing.

They are cooperation games meant to measure cooperation, they just do so in the face of ambiguity or uncertainty. What you failed to notice is that the participants were not allowed to see or communicate with one another, all they were told was that there are other participants and that the other participants were human. This is displayed by the fact that they did another experiment in which the participants were allowed to gossip and talk about the other participants (this reduced cooperation).

Furthermore, the study addresses the exact point you’re trying to make. They made sure that there was no correlation between risk attitude and ambiguity tolerance:

The cooperation games have no connection to the ambiguity experiment. They make the cooperation games and the ambiguity experiment separately and then run a regression on the results the see if both are statistically related. My claim is not that risk is related to cooperation, but that they actually measure trust with their ambiguity experiment, hence the result is simply trivial.

You should read a little more in-depth than the amount you’ve read now and you should do so with reading comprehension.

The people who are smug towards me literally never earn it.

[Oxymandias]

What? Of course there is a risk involved with playing the lottery. If you play you risk getting nothing with 50% probability, or with 25-75% probability in case of the ambiguity experiment. It's 5$ for sure OR playing and then your risk getting nothing.

I never said there wasn’t, although in hindsight it does seem that my post implied that. I apologize.

The cooperation games have no connection to the ambiguity experiment. They make the cooperation games and the ambiguity experiment separately and then run a regression on the results the see if both are statistically related. My claim is not that risk is related to cooperation, but that they actually measure trust with their ambiguity experiment, hence the result is simply trivial.

Ah, now I understand your point. I erroneously thought that you considered risk attitude and trust to be equivalent and since you are more knowledgeable about this stuff than me, I decided to adopt such a concept. Of course now I know that this was wrong. I will now properly address your point and give it justice.

Your claim is, unfortunately, false however only somewhat. Yes, the ambiguity attitudes were measured separately from the cooperation game and you’re right that the results measured trust and you’re right that they regressed the results to see a correlation between the experiments. What you missed is that the ambiguity attitudes were measured prior to the games. The goal of the study, in a nutshell, is to see whether the ambiguity attitudes of individuals or the participants effected how likely they were to cooperate or trust others in the face of unguaranteed success. If you have an issue with the study, it’s more productive to criticize how they measured the ambiguity attitudes instead of criticizing the results of the study which for all intents and purposes succeeds in verifying the hypothesis of the researchers.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Combined with this meta-analysis (http://www.sulloway.org/PoliticalConservatism(2003).pdf) finding out that political conservatives are characterized by a psychological intolerance of uncertainty and ambiguity, rooted in anxiety, you have basically boiled down what conservatism is at it's core. It answers many of the causes of xenophobia, racism, bigotry, and scapegoating clearly showing that such things aren't natural or inherent to human nature due to being a result of paranoia and deep-seated anxiety of uncertainty of which is nurtured not natural. It also addresses the notion, although lightly, that a certain or homogeneous society would lead to greater conformity while a heterogeneous or more ambiguous society would lead to strife or conflict. In fact, ambiguity may lead to a greater amount of people conforming within the standards of the society instead of rebelling against it.

The link to the meta analysis isn't working for me, but this paragraph of yours makes me wonder if you might have a deep seated psychological intolerance of conservatives.

As for the study, it doesn't measure how political conservatives act under ambiguity, but it would be interesting to see the magnitude of the difference, if any exists, between political groups, preferably in a pre-registered sufficiently powered study.

[Oxymandias]

@Kaiserschmarrn

The link to the meta analysis isn't working for me, but this paragraph of yours makes me wonder if you might have a deep seated psychological intolerance of conservatives.

I don't. I actually sympathize with particular aspects of conservatism (i.e. protectionism, reviving and maintaining traditional cultural practices, sponsoring cultural goods, furthering the nation's interests, and focusing solely on the nation's problems not the problems of other nations). However when I disagree with conservatives, it is usually on relatively big matters. Btw, could you clarify why you don't agree with the meta-analysis? You happen to realize what an meta-analysis is right? It is the only instrument capable of giving us the common, universal truth behind any science done.

As for the study, it doesn't measure how political conservatives act under ambiguity, but it would be interesting to see the magnitude of the difference, if any exists, between political groups, preferably in a pre-registered sufficiently powered study.

Interestingly, this is exactly what you see when looking at both the study and meta-analysis. In the meta-analysis, fear of uncertainty/ambiguity is mentioned as a defining characteristic of conservativism. When looking at the study regarding ambiguity, we can see that ambiguity intolerant persons are less likely to cooperate and trust others in uncertain or ambiguous situations.

However, not all ambiguity intolerant peoples are conservatives. I believe a few left-leaning people here can be considered ambiguous intolerant. Furthermore, risk averse-ness does not mean you're ambiguity intolerant. Ambiguity intolerance stems from a fear of uncertain situation. However based on the meta-analysis, it can be seen that ambiguity intolerance is more present in conservatives rather than liberals.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

@Oxymandias as I said your link to the meta analysis doesn't work for me, but I don't even have to look at it to know that what is measured there is not what is measured in this particular study, as uncertainty and ambiguity, as defined by the study you quote, are not equivalent. Ambiguity is a type of uncertainty to which political conservatives may or may not react differently when compared with others.

The way they establish ambiguity and risk as different concepts also depends on a borderline p-value (0.03) which should always make you pause. I also can't tell whether they pre-registered the study.

[Oxymandias]

@Kaiserschmarrn

@Oxymandias as I said your link to the meta analysis doesn't work for me

Don't click the hypertext, copy and paste the entire link. PoFo doesn't register pdfs when posting. I apologize, as I thought you meant something else.

but I don't even have to look at it to know that what is measured there is not what is measured in this particular study

Nothing is measured in a meta-analysis outside of the common truth. Furthermore, the study and meta-analysis are companions to one another otherwise it's politically significance is moot.

uncertainty and ambiguity, as defined by the study you quote, are not equivalent.

This is merely a matter of semiotics. The meaning or concept that the study and meta-analysis attempts to convey is the same. They merely use different words. For example, the study uses the term ambiguity tolerance while the meta-analysis uses the term uncertainty tolerance. Both terms mean the same thing, it simply the semiotics that is different.

Even if we look at the regular definition of ambiguity and uncertainty, we can find that they are synonyms.

Ambiguity is a type of uncertainty to which political conservatives may or may not react differently when compared with others.

Based on the combined results of the meta-analysis and study, I beg to differ. I do not state confidently that conservatives are all ambiguity/uncertainty intolerant, but I do think that conservatives are more prone to exhibit such traits than liberals. This does not mean that all conservatives are ambiguity intolerant.

The way they establish ambiguity and risk as different concepts also depends on a borderline p-value (0.03) which should always make you pause. I also can't tell whether they pre-registered the study.

A p-value does not support reasoning about the probabilities of hypotheses but is only a tool for deciding whether to reject a null hypothesis. Thus, establishing the difference between ambiguity and risk does not rely on it's p-value nor does the p-value indicate that the tested hypothesis is true. It only tells us that there is some kind of relationship between the two phenomena or, in this case, untrustworthy trustee and ambiguity attitudes and untrustworthy trustee and risk attitudes. This p-value, not only is not used to establish ambiguity and risk as different concepts but it is also not used to determine whether or not the hypothesis they tested is true.

Ergo, it does not depend on the p-value at all.

Regarding whether or not the study is pre-registered, may I ask how is it that you can see whether or not a study is pre-registered?

[Kaiserschmarrn]

^ I completely disagree. The study you quoted mentions how they separate ambiguity from risk, but the latter is obviously also a type of uncertainty.

Here's what they say about the difference between risk and ambiguity:

Testing for the significance between these two predictors revealed that the coefficient for ambiguity was significantly different from risk (z(102) = 2.14, p = 0.03; coefficients taken from the simple regressions reported in Supplementary Tables 5 and 6), suggesting that ambiguity attitudes have a unique and distinctive effect on prosocial behavior independent from risk attitudes.

That is, they do draw the conclusion that the two are different based on the p-value.

It's not always clear whether studies are pre-registered. Those that are usually mention it somewhere.

[Oxymandias]

@Kaiserschmarrn

^ I completely disagree. The study you quoted mentions how they separate ambiguity from risk, but the latter is obviously also a type of uncertainty.

No, they separated ambiguity attitudes from risk attitudes. They pose another definition for ambiguity. Furthermore, they state that ambiguity is a part of uncertainty not a different type of uncertainty. I have to ask, exactly what definition of ambiguity and uncertainty are you even using? It certainly is not how the study defines the terms and it is certainly not they way it is commonly defined in the English language as the words are synonyms, therefore equivalent.

That is, they do draw the conclusion that the two are different based on the p-value.

Yes, that is the point of the p-value, to determine whether or not there is a relationship between two measured phenomena. However, differentiating the two does not hinge on the p-value as they have other reasons for such a division.

It's not always clear whether studies are pre-registered. Those that are usually mention it somewhere.

So this does not de-legitimatize the study I assume.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

@Oxymandias, calling ambiguity "part of uncertainty" rather than "type of uncertainty" is a distinction without a difference with respect to my objection. They explain that, as they define it, ambiguity and risk are different in that in the former case the probability of an event occurring is not know.

They deduce from the p-value that the two have different effects. I've been imprecise in my wording in my earlier post, but that doesn't alter my argument. It's the central finding in the study without which they would have no basis on which to proceed.

[Oxymandias]

@Kaiserschmarrn

@Oxymandias, calling ambiguity "part of uncertainty" rather than "type of uncertainty" is a distinction without a difference with respect to my objection. They explain that, as they define it, ambiguity and risk are different in that in the former case the probability of an event occurring is not know.

You have to realize that the English definition of ambiguity and uncertainty are irrelevant in the context of the study. The term ambiguity, in context, is more in-line with inexactness. In other words, it is less about not knowing when an event would occur (that would be risk) and more about having a vague idea about what willing happen but not being so sure. In the experiment, the participants have a vague idea as to how the other players will interact with the game but don't know how or if they will.

They deduce from the p-value that the two have different effects. I've been imprecise in my wording in my earlier post, but that doesn't alter my argument. It's the central finding in the study without which they would have no basis on which to proceed.

I agree, that is the point of a p-value. However I don't see how that means there would be no basis to it without the p-value. It seems I have to directly cite the other evidence which supports their point outside of the p-value given you are willing to admit that there is any.

To test the hypothesis that cooperation rates are linked to attitudes toward ambiguity and not risk, we ran a trial-by-trial hierarchical logistic regression modeling subjects’ cooperative behavior in the PGG as a function of trial number (to account for receiving feedback over time, which inherently reduces ambiguity), and their individual risk (α) and ambiguity (β) attitudes. As predicted, individuals who were ambiguity-tolerant (i.e., exhibited a greater tolerance toward uncertainty in the first gambling task; denoted by β > 1) were more likely to cooperate (Fig. 1d; Table 1). We found no such relationship with risk attitudes (Fig. 1c; Table 1; see Supplementary Fig. 2 for a representation of raw behavioral data).

I assume this is satisfactory.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

You have to realize that the English definition of ambiguity and uncertainty are irrelevant in the context of the study. The term ambiguity, in context, is more in-line with inexactness. In other words, it is less about not knowing when an event would occur (that would be risk) and more about having a vague idea about what willing happen but not being so sure. In the experiment, the participants have a vague idea as to how the other players will interact with the game but don't know how or if they will.

I was referring to the definition of the researchers. That's the basis on which they carried out the study.

Uncertainty is a fundamental feature of human life that can be fractioned into two distinct psychological constructs: risk (known probabilistic outcomes) and ambiguity (unknown probabilistic outcomes).

I agree, that is the point of a p-value. However I don't see how that means there would be no basis to it without the p-value. It seems I have to directly cite the other evidence which supports their point outside of the p-value given you are willing to admit that there is any.

I assume this is satisfactory.

The p-value is the result of the significance test after they run their regression. Without that test, they cannot support their conclusion that "ambiguity attitudes have a unique and distinctive effect on prosocial behavior independent from risk attitudes".

[Godstud]

Yes, people who don't like facts(tolerate ambiguity) will believe any shit. Trump's popularity is proof of this sad fact.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Uncertainty is actually more likely to arise in the absence of facts.

[One Degree]

On Tuesday, I decide to buy a $5 lottery ticket. On Wednesday, I put $5 in savings instead of buying a lottery ticket. This study tells you nothing about who I am.

[Oxymandias]

@Kaiserschmarrn

I was referring to the definition of the researchers. That's the basis on which they carried out the study.

That is in fact right. However I don't see how this confirms your original point that ambiguity is a type of uncertainty. It may be seen that the definition provided by the researchers disproves this entirely given how they define it.

The p-value is the result of the significance test after they run their regression. Without that test, they cannot support their conclusion that "ambiguity attitudes have a unique and distinctive effect on prosocial behavior independent from risk attitudes".

That is not their conclusion nor goal when they preformed the experiment however. Such a line was merely an adjustment of their previous hypothesis, that ambiguity attitudes are distinct from risk attitudes, given the resulting p-value. They have already provided evidence which supports their claim that ambiguity and risk, as they define them, are distinct. The way you define uncertainty is completely and utterly irrelevant to bunking the study in any meaningful form, the points you are arguing now and the quotes you cite only argue against your points not for them.

Uncertainty is actually more likely to arise in the absence of facts.

This is true. However, it is a common tendency amongst westerners to reject news that doesn't favor them.

On Tuesday, I decide to buy a $5 lottery ticket. On Wednesday, I put $5 in savings instead of buying a lottery ticket. This study tells you nothing about who I am.

I apologize, but to be frank, is this a joke or something that you actually did?